Do not cite.

This piece is an early draft of a paper due to be published in 2016 by British

Food Journal.

Consumer preferences in food packaging: cub models and conjoint analysis

Arboretti Giancristofaro, Rosa 1; Bordignon, Paolo2

1
Department of Land Use and Territorial Systems, University of Padova, Legnaro, Italy,
rosa.arboretti@unipd.it
2
Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Vicenza, Italy,
bordignon.paolo@alice.it

Packaging features have been shown to be of great importance for the consumer final choice
of fresh products (Connolly and Davidson, 1996; Silayoi and Speece, 2007). Packaging is an
extrinsic attribute, which consumers tend to rely on, when relevant intrinsic attributes of the
product are not available. Thus, packaging is constantly developing to meet changing and
challenging consumer demands. In the current literature, studies on the influences of
packaging features on consumer preferences are mainly related to classical preference
evaluation methods like conjoint analysis (CA). Starting from a real case study in this field,
along with Conjoint Analysis, we apply CUB models (Iannario and Piccolo, 2010) as a useful
tool to evaluate preferences. CUB models can grasp some psychological characteristics of
consumers related to the “feeling” towards packaging attributes and related to an inherently
“uncertainty” that affects the consumers’ choices. Both psychological characteristics “feeling”
and “uncertainty” can be linked to relevant subject’s information. The aim of our paper is
twofold. At first we detect preferred packaging attributes of fresh food by means of CA, then
we apply CUB models to some relevant attributes from the CA study. Results show that
attributes like packaging material and size/shape of packaging are the most important
attributes and that biodegradable packaging, reclosable trays/bags and long “best by” date
are also valuable features for consumers.

Keywords: attributes, factorial designs, food packaging, mixed models.

Consumer behavior: preference analysis.

Paper prepared for presentation at the EAAE-AAEA Joint Seminar

‘Consumer Behavior in a Changing World: Food, Culture, Society”

March 25 to 27, 2015

Naples, Italy
Introduction
Within the framework of preference evaluation, stated and revealed preferences are widely
used approaches by marketing operators. The present study is mainly based on stated
preferences, in particular on the Conjoint Analysis (CA) method (Green & Srinivasan, 1978)
and on an innovative statistical method called CUB (Combination of Uniform discrete and
shifted Binomial distributions) model (Iannario & Piccolo, 2012). Both methods have been
applied to study the consumer behavior in several fields.
The relevance of studying packaging can be derived from a simple observation: products are
usually packaged when consumers buy them. The packaging is a sort of “silent vendor” and
could make the difference in uncertain consumers (Connolly & Davidson, 1996). About those
uncertain consumers, they could rely on some relevant packaging attributes for their purchase
decisions (Silayoi & Speece, 2007).
The packaging has at least a logistic function and a marketing function: the former protects
the product during transportation, the latter provides information about product attributes to
consumers (Prendergast & Pitt, 1996). According to Silayoi and Speece (2007) there are two
main categories of packaging elements influencing consumers: visual and informational
elements. Visual elements are related to graphics and size/shape of packaging, informational
elements are related to product information and information on the technologies used in the
package.
The packaging features and quality judgments are somewhat related and if packaging features
communicate high quality, those perceptions are transferred to the product itself. The color is
the most well-studied attribute. Perception of an acceptable color is associated with the
perception of flavor, nutrition and satisfaction levels. About the several packaging features,
pictures on the package can provoke feels, tastes and other perceptions on consumers.
Moreover, pictures attract consumers through vivid stimuli compared to words and they are a
method of differentiation linking a particular product to the brand.
The segmentation is a fundamental part in a research when the aim is to study preferences.
Those segments are indicative of the subjects’ characteristics related to a particular
configuration of preference. It is a relevant issue to collect information on how consumers
perceive packaging and to integrate perceptions, needs, wants and past experiences into the
packaging design process (Nancarrow et al., 1998). Moreover, segmentation is a fundamental
step that can help to identify specific needs and wants. Demographic variables, behaviors and
lifestyles are among those variables that can be used to segment the market (Orth et al., 2004).
Several Conjoint Analysis (Green & Srinivasan, 1978) studies have been conducted on food
packaging. In a study on the influence of shape and color for dessert, Ares et al. (2010) show
that the color of packaging and the pictures on it created sensorial expectations (e.g. taste).
Those expectations could affect the consumer’s perception of the food product. Moreover, for
healthy food products, the color of packaging and pictures on it seemed to be relevant to the
intention to buy.
A choice experiment on innovation technology for food packaging (Chen et al., 2013) shows
that risk perception and food safety concerns are the main factors that prevent consumers
from buying vacuum packaging of fresh beef. They underline the importance to inform
consumers on the safety of the innovative food packaging technology.
Koutsimanis et al. (2012) in a study on some food packaging attributes (price, packaging
material, size, shelf life, etc.) showed that price, shelf life, the packaging material and a
biodegradable packaging were the attributes affecting purchase decisions. A longer shelf life
was evaluated as more convenient while the packaging material was perceived to influence
the food product quality. Williams et al. (2008) show that the consumer satisfaction for food
product is linked to specific packaging designs that are able to protect the content from
leakage/disruption and extend the shelf life. A study on yogurt packaging (Rokka & Uusitalo,
2008) revealed that a recyclable packaging, a low-medium price and a re-closable packaging
are among the more preferred attributes. Similar results have been shown in a study on food
products in the first (at the store) and in the second (at home) moment of the truth (Lofgren et
al., 2008). Some quality attributes such as a recyclable packaging and a re-closable packaging
are very attractive and influence the choice of purchasing and utilizing the product.
The packaging design has been suggested to be a relevant factor that gives a competitive
advantage. Rundh (2009) shows the importance to interact with customers and suppliers in the
packaging design process: suppliers can provide the best solutions in order to meet the
customer requests.
CUB models (D’Elia & Piccolo, 2005; Iannario & Piccolo, 2012) are a class of mixture
models that have been successfully applied to preference evaluation and customer satisfaction
measurement for food products. In a study on smoked salmons, Piccolo and D’Elia (2008)
analyzed a preference data set introducing subject’s and object’s variables in order to explain
“feeling” and “uncertainty” consumer behaviors. An interesting application of CUB models
along with a latent class logit model (Cicia et al., 2010) reveals CUB models as a useful tool
in order to identify segmentation variables.
The aim of the study is to present an integrate approach in the field of preference evaluation.
The Conjoint Analysis methodology and the CUB models are applied to a preference data set
on food packaging with the aim to show the contribution of CUB models on conjoint analysis
results.

Methodology
Conjoint Analysis and CUB models are very different approaches both aimed at evaluating
preferences. In a typical CA application, attribute levels are experimentally combined and an
orthogonal plan is usually applied in order to lower the number of profiles. CA estimates the
utilities of the levels and the relative importance of the attributes by appropriate estimate
methods (Green & Srinivasan, 1978).
CUB models have been developed in order to explain the choice process of an item. “Feeling”
and “uncertainty” are supposed to be latent variables involved in the choice process of an
item (Iannario & Piccolo, 2012). D’Elia and Piccolo (2005) present the model as a valuable
method for evaluating preferences, describing the probability structure of the model. Many
years later, after several successful applications of CUB models, Iannario and Piccolo (2012)
and Iannario (2014) present a detailed description of the CUB models along with the main
extensions.
The random variable Y is fully explained by:
 m − 1 
(1 − ξ ) ξ m− y  + (1 − π )   ,
y −1 1
Pr(Y = y ) = π   y = 1, 2,..., m .
 y − 1   m
A shifted binomial distribution is intended to mimic the choice behaviour of a rate y among m
according to the feeling of respondents, while a discrete uniform distribution is aimed at
describing the maximum expression of the uncertainty component surrounding any choices.
The random variable Y is distributed as a mixture of shifted binomial and discrete uniform
distributions with 1-π, π є (0,1], a direct measure of uncertainty and ξ є [0,1] a measure of
feeling according to the measurement scale coding (Iannario, 2014). CUB model has been
shown to be very flexible and parsimonious assuming very different shapes thanks to only
two parameters π and ξ (Piccolo, 2003a; D’Elia & Piccolo, 2005). This flexibility allows
CUB models explain different choice behaviours. We referred to D’Elia (2003) and Piccolo
(2003b) for maximum likelihood parameter estimation by an E-M algorithm.
The feeling latent variable has been considered a psychological component involved in the
choice process. The final choice is the result of psychological aspects like the
agreement/disagreement toward the item, socio-cultural aspects, the knowledge of the item,
past experiences and so on. On the other side uncertainty takes into consideration the inherent
indecision accompanying any human choice and it can be referred to a tendency to joke or
fake, to have a confusing idea of the evaluated object, a bias involving
questions/questionnaires, a way of collecting data and so on (Corduas et al., 2009; Iannario &
Piccolo, 2012; Iannario, 2014).
Among the several extensions that have been developed (Iannario, 2014), we are considering
the introduction of covariates for explaining feeling and uncertainty parameters. A formal
description of CUB model with covariates (D’Elia, 2003; Piccolo, 2003b) shows that thanks
to the logistic functions
1 1
πi = − β0 − β1xi 1 −K− β p xip
= − β0 − xi β
1+ e 1+ e
and
1 1
ξi = −γ 0 −γ1wi 1 −K−γ q wiq
= − γ 0 − wi γ ,
1+ e 1+ e
parameters πi and ξi can be fully explained by covariate vectors xi=(1,xi1,…,xip) and
wi=(1,wi1,…,wiq). In such a framework, the model extension
 m − 1  yi −1 m − yi  1
Pr(Yi = yi ) = π i   (1 − ξi ) ξ i  + (1 − π i )   , y = 1, 2,..., m
 yi − 1   m

describes the probability distribution of the random variable Y for the i-th subject conditioned
to relevant covariates. Piccolo and D’Elia (2008) show that subjects’/objects’ covariates were
relevant to describe different patterns of smoked salmon evaluations according to gender, age
and country of origin of respondents and according to salt content, lightness and intensity of
red of smoked salmons.
For the sake of completion, we briefly describe some important CUB model extensions.
Iannario (2012) and Iannario (2014) introduce some CUB model extensions in order to catch
specific choice behaviors. A shelter choice is considered an over-selected grade in order to
simplify the evaluation task. Such a behavior can be responsible for an upward choice of a
specific grade or rank and Iannario (2012) shows that a proper CUB model can capture the
shelter effect and help to improve model fitting.
Iannario (2014) discusses about extra-variability that could be ascribed to an inter-personal
way of selecting among grades that is a variability of personal feeling. A Beta-binomial
random variable has been considered to be involved in the overdispersion effect and the
CUBE (convex Combination of a Uniform and a shifted BEta-binomial random variable)
model has been described by Iannario (2014).
Useful fitting measures for CUB models are based on estimated and observed probabilities
and on log-likelihood. A dissimilarity index has been developed in order to measure the
absolute distance between estimated and observed probabilities (Corduas et al., 2009;
Iannario, 2009). The normalized dissimilarity index
m
Diss = 0.5∑ f y − p y (θ )
y =1

represents the percentage of respondents that should change their choice in order to reach a
perfect fitting. It can be considered a satisfactory fitting when Diss ≤ 0.1 (Iannario, 2009). The
dissimilarity index approach cannot be extended to the CUB model with covariates and it
should be noticed the application of Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) in order to compare log-
likelihoods of nested models (Piccolo, 2003b; Corduas et al., 2009; Iannario, 2009).
We are considering a CUB (0, 0) with the parameter vector θ’=(π, ξ) and a nested model CUB
(p, q) with the parameter vector θ’’=(βi, γj), i=1,…,p+1, j=1,…,q+1. The log-likelihood
deviance is derived as LRT = −2 ( l (θ ′ ) − l (θ ′′ ) ) and it is distributed as a χ2 with degree of

freedom equal to the difference of the parameter number (D’Elia & Piccolo, 2008; Iannario &
Piccolo, 2009).
The basic idea of our proposal (figure 1) is to deepen the conjoint analysis results by applying
CUB models to those product profiles described by attribute levels that have been evaluated
as most relevant.

Figure 1 CUB models application to CA results.

We consider x attribute levels that have been estimated as with maximum utility so that we
define x groups of profiles and each of those has undergone CUB models analysis.

Procedures
The case study involved a firm that produces the raw material for food packaging purposes.
The main scope of the research was to collect consumer preferences for food packaging in
order to carry out insightful analysis. Once defined attribute levels (table 1), two experimental
designs were drawn. Each experimental design was drawn to define the product concepts on
which the conjoint analysis study was based. Each conjoint analysis has considered product
concepts that were described by four out of five attributes. We excluded “disposal” as an
attribute in the conjoint analysis called “cook-able”, the opposite occurred when we excluded
“cook-able packaging” as attribute. A fractional factorial design using an orthogonal plan was
adopted to reduce the number of level combinations.
Disposal Cook-able pkg Size Shape Shelf life

1 Recyclable Oven Single pack Vacuum packaging Long

2 Not recyclable Microwave Split packs Not reclosable bag Short

3 Biodegradable Steaming Family pack Reclosable bag by zip lock

4 Not possible Easy to peel tray with reclosable top
5 Reclosable tray by cover
Table 1 Attribute levels selected from previous customer satisfaction studies.

Considering four attributes, a complete full profile-Conjoint Analysis (CA)would have

brought one to evaluate 90 concepts: such a number has been lowered to 25 by means of an
orthogonal plan. Two out of 25 concepts were discharged because they were implausible. A
total of 23 cards was drawn by mixing pictures and descriptions. Two versions of the conjoint
analysis’ questionnaire were developed. Two groups of consumers were identified and they
were asked to provide demographic information and to express their preferences by selecting
a grade from 1 to 10 (with 1 = “I would never buy it”) for each profile card. The estimation
method to derive utilities was based on Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) as described in Hauser
and Rao (2004). After obtaining conjoint analysis results, some of those relevant results were
elaborated by CUB models in order to estimate feeling and uncertainty parameters. We have
considered, for each attribute, the cards with the highest part-worth utility. The four groups of
cards were similar for at least one level attribute: the CUB models were applied to the four
groups of cards.
Results
We collected a total of 205 CA questionnaires, 83 for “cook-able” version and 122 for
“disposal” version. For the “cook-able” version we have 60 females and 22 males; 72 are
Italian and 11 are Austrian. The age ranges from 18 to 80 (M=42; SD=16.8). For the
“disposal” version we have 66 females and 56 males; 102 are Italian and 20 are Austrian. The
age ranges from 18 to 83 (M=41; SD=15.7).
Aggregated relative importance of attributes can be represented by bar plots.

Figure 2 Attribute importance of cook-able version (left panel) and disposal version (right panel).

Consumers gave more importance to both cook-able pkg and disposal than other attributes.
We hypothesize that this trend could be a bias due to the interviewing procedures. In fact
consumers were asked to state if they paid more attention to the possibility to cook food
inside the packaging or if they paid more attention to the packaging material (recyclable or
not). The shape and the size of packaging were also important attributes.
At the same time we describe a summary of the part-worth utilities for each version of the
CA. Utilities are shown in bar plots in order to have an overview of the levels with the highest
utility.

Figure 3 Level utilities for cook-able and disposal attributes.

Results show that the levels with the highest utility were the cook-able packaging by oven and
the biodegradable packaging.
 Figure 4 Level utilities for size attribute: cook-able and disposal versions in left and right panel respectively.

Split packs and long shelf life are the levels with the highest utility in both CA versions.
Figure 4 shows that single pack and family pack have negative utilities while figure 5 shows
that a long shelf life has very positive utility with respect to short shelf life. Long shelf life
was defined to be two weeks while short shelf life was set at one week. Finally “shape” shows
a slightly different pattern of level utilities.

Figure 5 Level utilities for shelf life attribute: cook-able and disposal versions in left and right panel respectively.

The levels for “shape” with the highest utility are cover-reclosable trays and zip lock-
reclosable bags. The pattern shown in figure 6 stresses the importance of a bag or a tray that
can be closed after that it has been opened.

Figure 6 Level utilities for shape attribute: cook-able and disposal versions in left and right panel respectively.
Based on the levels with the highest utility,
utility we have selected and grouped the profiles and we
have run CUB models without and with covariates. Parameter π,, parameter ξ and dissimilarity
indexes are shown in tables 2 and 3 for both versions of CA. The variable
vari “All” is
representing all cards with at least one attribute level that has been estimated with the highest
utility.
Variable π ξ Diss. Log likelihood
1 Cook-able pkg: oven 0.576 (0.051) 0.342 (0.016) 0.0489 -792.351
3 Shelf life: long 0.451 (0.037) 0.257 (0.014) 0.0756 -1620.434
4 Shape: bag with zip lock 0.309 (0.052) 0.221 (0.028) 0.0619 -826.835
5 Size: split packs 0.546 (0.066) 0.121 (0.019) 0.0857 -301.8470
6 All 0.418 (0.031) 0.286 (0.013) 0.0533 -2448.948
Table 2 Pai and Csi estimates (standard error), dissimilarity indexes and log likelihood for cook-able
cook version of CA.

Variable π ξ Diss. Log likelihood

2 Disposal: biodegradable 0.527 (0.046) 0.141 (0.016) 0.1842 -1074.460
3 Shelf life: long 0.321 (0.034) 0.199 (0.019) 0.1179 -2065.394
4 Shape: tray with cover 0.232 (0.052) 0.310 (0.036) 0.1059 -930.4743
5 Size: split packs 0.373 (0.054) 0.120 (0.023) 0.1082 -668.8398
6 All 0.320 (0.027) 0.220 (0.015) 0.1141 -3446.425
Table 3 Pai and Csi estimates (standard error), dissimilarity indexes and log likelihood for disposal version of CA.

Observed relative frequency and fitted probability

probabilit plots are reported (figure 7 and figure 8).

Figure 7 Observed relative frequencies (dots) and fitted probabilities (circles) of CUB models for cook-able
cook version of CA.
 Figure 8 Observed relative frequencies (dots) and fitted probabilities (circles) of CUB models for disposal version
vers of CA.

In order to have a comprehensive overview of the uncertainty and the feeling dimensions,
dimensions we
placed each of those attribute levels into space (figure 9). The CUB model gives two
parameters for each attribute level so that we can determine points
point into a two-dimensional
two
space.

Figure 9 Feeling/Uncertainty dimensions of attribute levels: cook-able

cook able and disposal versions in left and right panel
respectively.

The feeling for “split packs” is very high and also for “biodegradable”.
le”. The attribute level
with the higher uncertainty is the tray reclosable by cover. Then we have applied a CUB
model with covariates for each group of cards.
cards
 Covariates Coding
Gender 0= male;1= female
Nationality 0= Italy;1= Austria
Age Continuous variable
1= elementary; 2= intermediate;
Educational level
3= high school; 4= graduate
1= <800; 2= 800-1700;
Income (monthly in Euros)
3= 1800-2900; 4= >2900
Table 4 Covariates for CUB model.

The covariates (table 4) have been introduced once at a time and useful descriptions (from
tables 5 to table 8) show which of them and how they affect CUB-model parameters. In
particular we reported π or ξ estimates, the effect estimates (β or γ) of covariates that we can
use to estimate parameter π or ξ and we reported also the log-likelihood in order to have
sufficient data to compare nested models.
Log
Variable π or β0 π covariate β1 ξ or γ0 ξ covariate γ1
likelihood
0.449 -0.861 -0.323
- - Gender -1618.10
(0.037) (0.114) (0.149)
Shelf life: long
0.466 -0.149 Educational -0.371
- - -1610.121
(0.036) (0.212) level (0.083)
0.310 -0.833 -0.620
- - Gender -824.8445
Shape: bag with (0.051) (0.232) (0.302)
zip lock -2.432 0.933 0.220
Income - - -824.5315
(0.971) (0.482) (0.0260)
0.566 -2.947 0.024
- - Age -299.6697
(0.064) (0.499) (0.011)
0.607 -0.146 Educational -0.635
Size: split packs - - -295.8138
(0.067) (0.488) level (0.182)
-2.354 Educational 0.956 0.110
- - -295.5072
(0.857) level (0.296) (0.017)
0.111 -0.627 0.292
Gender - - -2446.353
(0.220) (0.272) (0.013)
-1.168 0.484 0.283
Income - - -2446.366
(0.411) (0.215) (0.013)
All
0.417 -0.703 -0.359
- - Gender -2444.622
(0.031) (0.091) (0.122)
0.429 -0.286 Educational -0.250
- - -2442.787
(0.031) (0.188) level (0.072)
Table 5 Parameter estimates (standard error) and log-likelihood of CUB models with covariates (cook-able version of CA).

Table 5 and table 7 show CUB (1, 0) with a significant covariate for π and CUB (0,1) with a
significant covariate for ξ. Each line in table 5 and table 7 presents the CUB model with a
significant covariate.
Each line in tables 6 and 8 show which covariates were significant for a CUB model with
more than one covariate. The first line of table 8 presents results of a CUB (1, 1) for
“disposal”: nationality and age were significant for explaining parameters π and ξ
respectively. The first line of table 6 shows a CUB (0, 2) for “long shelf life” (cook-able
version of CA): gender and educational level were both significant for explaining parameter ξ.
The LRT was also significant (χ31.618, 2, p-value < 0.000001).
 Log
Variable π or β0 π covariate β1 ξ or γ0 ξ covariate γ1 and γ2
likelihood
-0.484
Gender
0.463 0.319 (0.147)
Shelf life: long - - -1604.625
(0.036) (0.255) Educational -0.442
level (0.087)
Shape: bag with -2.342 0.896 -0.937 -0.556
Income Gender -822.639
zip lock (0.915) (0.463) (0.209) (0.284)
-1.474 Educational 0.702 -0.626 Educational -0.463
Size: split packs -292.9269
(0.878) level (0.304) (0.570) level (0.190)
-0.525
Gender
0.272 -0.803 0.195 (0.123)
All Gender -2430.956
(0.213) (0.263) (0.215) Educational -0.329
level (0.075)
Table 6 Parameters (standard error) and log-likelihood of CUB models with more than one covariates applied to cook-able
CA cards.

From table 6, considering all attribute levels (the variable called “All”), the parameter π of
CUB model was significantly affected by gender and the parameter ξ was affected by gender
and educational level.
Log
Variable π or β0 π covariate β1 ξ or γ0 ξ covariate γ1
likelihood
0.372 -1.599 0.146
Nationality - - -1068.66
(0.201) (0.611) (0.015)
-1.491 Educational 0.595 0.144
- - -1067.423
Disposal: (0.509) level (0.174) (0.015)
biodegradable 0.515 -2.671 0.019
- - Age -1069.814
(0.047) (0.383) (0.007)
0.521 -0.705 Educational -0.403
- - -1069.253
(0.045) (0.353) level (0.138)
-1.853 Educational 0.395 0.199
- - -2061.719
(0.488) level (0.153) (0.018)
0.251 -0.573 0.192
Income - - -2063.067
(0.488) (0.282) (0.019)
Shelf life: long
0.319 -2.600 0.026
- - Age -2056.569
(0.035) (0.398) (0.007)
0.326 -2.059 0.361
- - Income -2062.043
(0.034) (0.295) (0.129)
Shape: tray with 0.241 -0.699 -2.301
- - Nationality -926.0493
cover (0.050) (0.158) (1.055)
-1.948 Educational 0.494 0.116
- - -665.8254
(0.700) level (0.216) (0.022)
0.364 -3.423 0.030
Size: split packs - - Age -663.9665
(0.048) (0.598) (0.010)
0.394 -0.311 Educational -0.558
- - -665.6478
(0.052) (0.785) level (0.276)
-1.900 Educational 0.411 0.222
- - -3439.968
(0.411) level (0.121) (0.014)
0.319 -2.076 0.017
All - - Age -3439.09
(0.027) (0.265) (0.005)
0.320 -1.843 0.298
- - Income -3443.031
(0.027) (0.245) (0.108)
Table 7 Parameter estimates (standard error) and log-likelihood of CUB models with covariates (disposal version of CA).
 Log
Variable π or β0 π covariate β1 ξ or γ0 ξ covariate γ1 and γ2
likelihood
Disposal: 0.339 -1.564 -2.541 0.017
Nationality Age -1064.042
biodegradable (0.207) (0.590) (0.348) (0.006)
0.024
Age
0.323 -2.936 (0.007)
Shelf life: long - - -2054.960
(0.035) (0.433) 0.241
Income
(0.129)
-1.558 Educational 0.299 -1.822 0.013
All Age -3435.976
(0.366) level (0.121) (0.244) (0.005)
Table 8. Parameters (standard error) and log-likelihood of CUB models with more than one covariates applied to disposal
CA cards.

Tables 9 and 10 show directions of uncertainty (1-π) or feeling (1-ξ) when a significant
covariate is introduced. This way of representing effect direction is aimed at giving a tool to
easily discriminate patterns. Table 9 indicates that females have constantly higher feeling and
uncertainty than males.
(1-π) (1-ξ)
Variable π covariate ξ covariate
effect effect
Gender ↑
Shelf life: long - -
Educational level ↑
Shape: bag with zip lock - - Gender ↑
Age ↓
Size: split packs Educational level ↓
Educational level ↑
Gender ↑ Gender ↑
All
Income ↓ Educational level ↑
Table 9 Direction of the effect when covariates are introduced (cook-able version of CA).

Table 10 presents a slightly different pattern of covariates. Gender was not significant and
educational level was an important covariate that seemed to affect the uncertainty component.
(1-π) (1-ξ)
Variable π covariate ξ covariate
effect effect
Nationality ↑ Age ↓
Disposal: biodegradable
Educational level ↓ Educational level ↑
Educational level ↓ Age ↓
Shelf life: long
Income ↑ Income ↓
Shape: tray with cover - - Nationality ↑
Age ↓
Size: split packs Educational level ↓
Educational level ↑
Age ↓
All Educational level ↓
Income ↓
Table 10 Direction of the effect when covariates are introduced (disposal version of CA).

Discussion and conclusions

The results show what are the most relevant packaging characteristics after applying the
conjoint analysis’ estimation method to a preference evaluation dataset. The profiles have
been experimentally designed to collect preferences on food packaging. Relevant information
on subjects has also been collected in order to study how the characteristics of the subjects
affect uncertainty and feeling toward the most preferred food packaging attributes.
Results have shown that biodegradable packaging and split packs have the highest feeling and
that the cook-able food packaging has the lowest feeling and uncertainty. About the shape of
packaging, consumers seem to appreciate reclosable bags by zip lock that have been estimated
to have higher feeling and lower uncertainty with respect to reclosable tray by cover.
Consumers seem to feel more comfortable with reclosable bags.
Dissimilarity indexes indicate that CUB models have very good fitting with respect to cook-
able version of profiles. CUB models applied to the disposal version of CA show high
dissimilarity indexes that suggested the need to run further analysis. In fact, when we
introduce covariates CUB models improve a lot and LRTs can give a measure of those
improvements.
About the cook-able version of CA, the most relevant covariates of the subjects introduced to
explain feeling and uncertainty were gender and educational level, whereas about the disposal
version, educational level and age have often resulted to be involved as significant covariates.
Concerning the worst CUB model fitting of profiles related to biodegradable packaging, a
CUB (1, 1) has been identified to be very useful in order to improve the model fitting. Italians
seem to express lower uncertainty than Austrians and younger consumers have higher feeling
that older consumers.
What we see is a different pattern of covariates for food packaging including the possibility to
cook the product with the packaging itself: the gender and the level of education could affect
in some way the final choice of evaluation and ultimately the purchase decision. A different
pattern of behaviours is explaining the choice involving food products that are described by
different characteristics like a biodegradable packaging and a reclosable tray: age and
educational level were relevant in order to define different behaviours with respect to the
feeling and the uncertainty. Younger consumers with a higher level of education seem to be
more resolute with respect to their final choice selecting higher preference scores than older
consumers with a lower level of education.
An in-depth analysis shows that, the approach identified specific characteristics of the
subjects that seemed to be related to a specific attribute level. For example, the feeling and the
uncertainty toward split-pack packaging were significantly affected by educational level and
age and educational level respectively for both versions of CA. The split pack packaging has
been estimated to be the most preferred with the highest feeling, especially among younger
consumers with a high level of education.
Concerning the long-shelf life attribute level, CUB model results are more difficult to read:
there is a very different pattern between the two versions of CA. Results indicate a more
heterogeneous groups of respondents for disposal version of CA so the suggestion is to apply
the innovative approach “conjoint analysis and CUB models” not only on large and
representative samples but also on comparable samples. The approach that we have presented
could be very useful in order to drive the choice of a final product configuration specific to a
market segment.

References
Ares, G., Besio, M., Gimenez, A., Deliza, R. (2010). Relationship between involvement and
functional milk desserts intention to purchase. Influence on attitude towards packaging
characteristics. Appetite, 55(2), 298-304.

Chen, Q., Anders, S., An, H. (2013). Measuring consumer resistance to a new food
technology: A choice experiment in meat packaging. Food Quality and Preference, 28(2),
419-428.

Cicia, G., Corduas, M., Del Giudice, T., Piccolo, D. (2010). Valuing consumer preferences
with the CUB model: A case study of fair trade coffee. International Journal on Food System
Dynamics, 1, 82-93.

Connolly, A., Davidson, L. (1996). How does design affect decisions at point of sale?
Journalof Brand Management, 4(2), 100-107.

Corduas, M., Iannario, M., & Piccolo, D. (2009). A class of statistical models for evaluating
services and performances. In P. Monari., M. Bini, D. Piccolo & L. Salmaso (Eds.), Statistical
methods for the evaluation of educational services and quality of products (pp. 99-117).
Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag HD.

D’Elia, A. (2003). A mixture model with covariates for ranks data: Some inferential
developments. Quaderni di Statistica, 5, 1-25.

D’Elia, A., Piccolo, D. (2005). A mixture model for preferences data analysis. Computational
Statistics & Data Analysis, 49, 917-934.
Green, P. E., Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and
outlook, The Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103-123.

Hauser, J. R., & Rao, V. R. (2004). Conjoint analysis, related modeling, and applications. In
Y. Wind & P. E. Green (Eds.), Marketing research and modeling: Progress and prospects. A
tribute to Paul E. Green (pp. 141-168). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag GmbH.

Iannario, M. (2009). Fitting measures for ordinal data models. Quaderni di Statistica, 11, 39-
72.

Iannario, M. (2012). Modelling shelter choices in a class of mixture models for ordinal
responses. Statistical Methods & Applications, 21, 1-22.

Iannario, M. (2014). Modelling uncertainty and overdispersion in ordinal data.

Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 43, 771-786.

Iannario, M., Piccolo, D. (2010). A new statistical model for the analysis of customer
satisfaction. Quality Technology & Quantitative Management, 7(2), 149-168.

Iannario, M., Piccolo, D. (2009). A program in R for CUB model inference. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228987009_A_program_in_R_for_CUB_models_inf
erence

Iannario, M., & Piccolo, D. (2012). CUB models: Statistical methods and empirical evidence.
In S. R. Kennet & S. Salini (Eds.), Modern analysis of customer satisfaction surveys: With
applications using R (pp. 231-258). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.

Koutsimanis, G., Getter, K., Behe, B., Harte, J., Almenar, E. (2012). Influences of packaging
attributes on consumer purchase decisions for fresh produce. Appetite, 59(2), 270-280.

Lofgren, M., Witell, L., Gustafsson, A. (2008). Customer satisfaction in the first and second
moments of truth. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(7), 463-474.
Nancarrow, C., Wright, T. L., Brace, I. (1998). Gaining competitive advantage from
packaging and labeling in marketing communications. British Food Journal, 100(2), 110-118.

Orth, U. R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T., Lopetcharat, K. (2004). Promoting brand
benefits: the role of consumer psychographics and lifestyle. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
21(2), 97-108.

Piccolo, D. (2003a). On the moments of a mixture of uniform and shifted binomial random
variables. Quaderni di Statistica, 5, 85-104.

Piccolo, D. (2003b). Computational issues in the E-M algorithm for ranks model estimation
with covariates. Quaderni di Statistica, 5, 1-22.

Piccolo, D., D’Elia, A. (2008). A new approach for modelling consumers’ preferences. Food
Quality and Preference, 19, 247-259.
Prendergast, P. G., Pitt, L. (1996). Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: Are
there trade-offs? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
26(6), 60-72.

Rokka, J., Uusitalo, L. (2008). Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices –
Do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 516-525.

Rundh, B. (2009). Packaging design: Creating competitive advantage with product packaging.
British Food Journal, 111(9), 988-1002.

Silayoi, P., Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint analysis
approach. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1495-1517.

Williams, H., Wikstrom F., Lofgren, M. (2008). A life cycle perspective on environmental
effects of customer focused packaging development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 853-
859.